I remember reading you saying that you entered the wrong number, at some point before the forum went down. That isn't really a bug, but it's not really tuned either
State of the Mod: 7/24v3
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
I remember reading you saying that you entered the wrong number, at some point before the forum went down. That isn't really a bug, but it's not really tuned either
I remember reading you saying that you entered the wrong number, at some point before the forum went down. That isn't really a bug, but it's not really tuned either
That was in v2.
G
Oh, my bad in that case.
Just to be clear, the early-game goldcosts did not need to be increased, they were bordering on being too high anyways.
One other thing I have noticed is that the mod right now feels more "wide-favorable" than the base game.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I remember the great "tall vs wide" debates on this forum when we were building the tradition tree. So I don't know if that is intentional or not.
Its more wide favorable for a few reasons:
1) Happiness doesn't curb expansion as much. Overall it is much easier to expand.
2) Happiness does not penalize satellite city growth. In the base game, every point of population eats a happy, and pop in your big super city tends to be more valuable, so its a bigger penalty. Growth is not hindered in the mod.
3) Loss of most percentile bonuses. This is the big one. Without these big bonuses, a super city doesn't mean anything. Every city is just as good as any other, as long as I can get the bonuses. And that's where number 4 comes in...
4) More static bonuses from specialists, terrain, and buildings. In general all of these areas have had their static bonuses buffed. And wide is able to acquire more of them.
Now again to reiterate, I don't think the current place is a bad place to be, but its important to note that the balance point has changed compared to the base game imo.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I remember the great "tall vs wide" debates on this forum when we were building the tradition tree. So I don't know if that is intentional or not.
Its more wide favorable for a few reasons:
1) Happiness doesn't curb expansion as much. Overall it is much easier to expand.
2) Happiness does not penalize satellite city growth. In the base game, every point of population eats a happy, and pop in your big super city tends to be more valuable, so its a bigger penalty. Growth is not hindered in the mod.
3) Loss of most percentile bonuses. This is the big one. Without these big bonuses, a super city doesn't mean anything. Every city is just as good as any other, as long as I can get the bonuses. And that's where number 4 comes in...
4) More static bonuses from specialists, terrain, and buildings. In general all of these areas have had their static bonuses buffed. And wide is able to acquire more of them.
Now again to reiterate, I don't think the current place is a bad place to be, but its important to note that the balance point has changed compared to the base game imo.
Strigvir
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
Yeah, that's why I had random happiness drops from 300 to 100 for no apparent reason, aside from expanding. It's not even funny when the freshly produced 5 pop city instantly eats ~20 of happiness.
But it does, literally reduces produced food by the percentage. Which can get pretty ugly if you dip into into negative values, which forces some of cities to remove specialists, which causes even more unhappiness and reduces the food further...
And how is it different from the base game? The biggest sources of percentages were basic buildings (which could be constructed in any city), NWs didn't even contribute much to it.
Wide also has to pay for building maintenance, which skyrockets pretty high the more cities you have.
This is not even the end-game consumption yet (iirc it was around 6k by the end) and you have to build almost everything, otherwise enjoy all the unhappiness.
And wide also has to deal with more unhappiness from urbanization (which adds on top of the population cap), while it doesn't warrant much more relative science and culture outputs.
There was a balance point in the base game? Never knew about that.
If anything, the base game punished too much for early expansion but after ideologies you could conquest a whole huge map and still have 100+ happiness. So the base game is more wide-friendly than CBP.
Strigvir, one thing we should consider is that our prospectives are very different I bet because of our difficult levels.
In the base game, happiness is a static force, no matter which difficulty you play on you have to deal with it in roughly the same way.
In the mod happiness is a factor of average values, and since you are having to contend with very strong bonuses (I think you mention you played immortal, kudos btw!) I would imagine you get a lot more unhappiness.
I'm generally on prince and most of my cities get 2 unhappiness, my good cities have 0. Throw in a few happiness bonuses (rationalisms +1 per connected city, honors +1 per garrison) and my cities don't generate unhappy.
All of that said, I know it used to be that a city could not generate more unhappiness than its population, has that changed? I didn't think a 5 pop city could generate 20 unhappy.
The AI doesn't get yield bonuses like that (none that would affect their yields for the global average calc), however more large cities and more cities with buildings will affect things, so your argument stands (it is just a little bit misconstrued on that one point).
G
Strigvir
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
Nah, I also play on prince (emperor in the old system) and the screenshots were from the prince game.
Iirc it uses median values, otherwise all wide civs would be wrecked by tall civs with their super cities.
You didn't say how much cities you have.
Urbanization penalty adds on top of usual unhappiness sources. So the starting colonist city will give 5+1.5 base unhappiness. Also it raises needs by 2% in each city, itself included. Hence 20 uhappiness in the end.
Strigvir I know I've said this before, but I'm pretty sure most of your problems stem from the size of the maps you play. I mean you have 112 spice-resources meaning you have settled like 55 cities, not counting cities you've conquered. The maps I play on can't even fit 55 cities.
More gold per turn maintenance on units as part of war weariness would be cool. I rather liked research agreements.. as an idea, but I'm pretty sure they gave a lump science at finish. I would have preferred a bonus to all scientist specialists along the line of +1
-1
. To be like 'we are going to invest in this research project and pay the scientists more to research it."A few others general notes:
1) Courthouses: This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but I hate how a conquered, annexed, courthoused city that I have had for 100 turns still costs me more than a "pure" city I founded myself. Its only 1 gpt, but its the principal of the thing. Any reason we can't make this 0 gpt? Its already pretty expensive to build.
2) Arsenal: So far I have found the walls and castles do a solid job of getting a city relevant to the units around it (you got me building walls Gazebo, and you didn't even have to use any gimmicky bonuses to do it...congrats!). However, I am finding the military base isn't quite giving me enough defense to stay current....and its very expensive considering it is often going into my edge fringe cities.
3) The later game hammer buildings feel a little too expensive for what they do. The workshop and factory come to mind. It takes a lot of turns to pay off those hammers, and this is closer to the point in the game where I don't have a huge amount of turns remaining. The workshop does give the side trading advantage, so that is a factor.
4) This is again more of a preference than a true balance issue, but I would like to see what others think. I still find strategic resources too plentiful. Getting 4-6 of iron or horses early game is not difficult. And by later in the game I often have 12-14. I know you have put ways to burn them later on, but I still don't find them "strategic" in most cases. For one, I don't think there should be any 6 deposits, and 4's should be rare.
1) Courthouses: This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but I hate how a conquered, annexed, courthoused city that I have had for 100 turns still costs me more than a "pure" city I founded myself. Its only 1 gpt, but its the principal of the thing. Any reason we can't make this 0 gpt? Its already pretty expensive to build.
2) Arsenal: So far I have found the walls and castles do a solid job of getting a city relevant to the units around it (you got me building walls Gazebo, and you didn't even have to use any gimmicky bonuses to do it...congrats!). However, I am finding the military base isn't quite giving me enough defense to stay current....and its very expensive considering it is often going into my edge fringe cities.
3) The later game hammer buildings feel a little too expensive for what they do. The workshop and factory come to mind. It takes a lot of turns to pay off those hammers, and this is closer to the point in the game where I don't have a huge amount of turns remaining. The workshop does give the side trading advantage, so that is a factor.
4) This is again more of a preference than a true balance issue, but I would like to see what others think. I still find strategic resources too plentiful. Getting 4-6 of iron or horses early game is not difficult. And by later in the game I often have 12-14. I know you have put ways to burn them later on, but I still don't find them "strategic" in most cases. For one, I don't think there should be any 6 deposits, and 4's should be rare.
akasha27
Chieftain
Hi
Here is some feedback and suggestions on version 7-24, hope is useful, if not please ignore
- During all the game, Venice would have great merchants stationed in some city states but not doing any kind of action. They were behind at everything at the game, but generating a lot of gold and having the biggest military. They are not supposed to puppet cities as a strategy?
- Not a single civ would accept cities as a gift, even if they were doing well in economy and happiness. Sometimes the cities offered would be adjacent to their territory.
- The settling location logic for AI is weird. They wouldn't settle in amazing locations near their territory, instead go to far away locations, hard to protect.
- It happend twice for civ's with who I was at war with to settle cities near my troops.
- I killed a lot of workers, great people and some other civilian units because they were moving inside my territory during war time.
- I imagine this must be difficult to code, I was helping all the way the Zulus on a war in their territory, providing units or fighting with my own, and giving them technology. Still they were repeatedly sending spies, being caught and promising they wouldn't do it any more. At some point they choose a different ideology and they denounced me. Is there something that can be done that AI realizes better who is helping them?
- The "Conscription" Policy on might is annoying for someone who likes to control which units and when to build;
- Some city states are very easy to conquer because they don't produce enough military (I think city defense values for cities should be increased generally).
- Is it possible to raise the border expansion for city states? Some never got their adjacent resources during all game;
I like how the game is balanced at this point, great work.
Here is some feedback and suggestions on version 7-24, hope is useful, if not please ignore
- During all the game, Venice would have great merchants stationed in some city states but not doing any kind of action. They were behind at everything at the game, but generating a lot of gold and having the biggest military. They are not supposed to puppet cities as a strategy?
- Not a single civ would accept cities as a gift, even if they were doing well in economy and happiness. Sometimes the cities offered would be adjacent to their territory.
- The settling location logic for AI is weird. They wouldn't settle in amazing locations near their territory, instead go to far away locations, hard to protect.
- It happend twice for civ's with who I was at war with to settle cities near my troops.
- I killed a lot of workers, great people and some other civilian units because they were moving inside my territory during war time.
- I imagine this must be difficult to code, I was helping all the way the Zulus on a war in their territory, providing units or fighting with my own, and giving them technology. Still they were repeatedly sending spies, being caught and promising they wouldn't do it any more. At some point they choose a different ideology and they denounced me. Is there something that can be done that AI realizes better who is helping them?
- The "Conscription" Policy on might is annoying for someone who likes to control which units and when to build;
- Some city states are very easy to conquer because they don't produce enough military (I think city defense values for cities should be increased generally).
- Is it possible to raise the border expansion for city states? Some never got their adjacent resources during all game;
I like how the game is balanced at this point, great work.
Might be something related to an exploit where you could give your "occupied" cities to someone to hold so that your enemies couldn't retake them later if they had the chance.
AKA LeaderDeceptive and WillingtoBackstab trait.
Sell them for gold.
